In point of fact, the environmental impact of shipping plants hundreds of kms is an order of magnitude less than the impact of consuming local meat. But you don't actually care about that, it's sophistry.

Oh man. I could go on again about how it’s not because you can inflict violence that you should and that you’re justified doing so because you can. I’ve already mentioned that in the other reply to you.

So there are two more points I’d like to make.

1. Do you think there’s a possibility you’ve been propagandized to the point where critique of meat eating feels like a personal attack? Because if you notice I’ve been nothing but cordial to you while both your comments you tried to do personal attacks. “Go eat kale”, “limp wristed pacifism”, neither are accurate. But would you examine why you feel like resorting to that?

2. veganism is indeed much better for the environment. Cows are extremely thermodynamically inefficient. If you’re vegan you plant something you eat it and you get the calories you need. For animal farming you have to plant a bunch feed the cow. Plant more feed the cow. Do it for years and then kill the cow. Any argument of efficiency is an argument for veganism. Not against it. So no. Eating meat has a much worse quantifiable impact on the environment. Most studies put it at 10 to 20 times worse. Very easy to look up if you care enough.

And if you reply to this “what about hunting”, “what about roadkill”, “what about them natives” which are the usual retorts. I’d say who cares about any of that. That’s not even a rounding error in the total meat consumption we do as a species and total amount of unnecessary cruelty we inflict on animals.